“It is not the mountain we conquer but ourselves.”
November 29, 2017 12:10 PM Subscribe
Civilization VI: Rise and Fall Expansion Announcement Trailer [YouTube] “The expansion looks to majorly shake up the flow of the game with era-long modifiers that will force you to shift your strategy for fear of losing your cities or ambition to seize others'. Its centerpiece feature is the addition of "Golden Ages," "Dark Ages," and "Heroic Ages"—macro events that apply each civilization's ever-shifting fortunes, achievements, and momentum to a struggle for territory and cultural influence, whether military force is involved or not. The expansion will also add governors, a greatly expanded alliances system, cities that peacefully flip between civilizations, and an "Historic Moments" system that gives players special milestones that impact outcomes. Players can look forward to "emergency situations," which allow the civilizations at the bottom to pool their resources in order to gain benefits that help elevate them all closer to the top players. And, of course, expect new civilizations and leaders.” [via: Ars Technica]
• Civilization VI's First Expansion Sounds Great, And Is Coming Just At The Right Time [Kotaku]
• Civilization VI's First Expansion Sounds Great, And Is Coming Just At The Right Time [Kotaku]
“Of the new stuff it’s adding, Governors have me most excited. The idea of assigning a specific unit to oversee a settlement’s theme and production is nothing new within the genre (Endless Space 2, for example, does them very well), but I’m excited to put them to work in Civ, especially since I’m someone who likes to theme their cities anyway (assigning very specific roles for each one). I’m also keen to see how the more meaty alliances work. Diplomacy, both for its random nature and limited applications, is one of Civ VI’s weakest aspects, but the new alliance system—which grows stronger over time, grants perks and allows for specific bonds (like research alliance, military ties, etc)—will hopefully make friendship a thing actually worth pursuing in the game.”• Civilization 6 will go "in directions we've never seen before" [PCGamesN]
“I think nobody focuses on the course of human history like we do. The great thing about that is we don’t have to provide the full backstory to all of our content, because a lot of people are familiar with our history: how there were different cradles of civilisation, and then the Western world fell into a Dark Age, then came out of that with a Renaissance. We just need to plug pieces of content in and bring out episodes of that history here and there. It's a way to roll out a strategy experience that people immediately engage with. I have a lot of respect for people who make a 4X strategy game in a fantasy or science fiction environment, because they have to create so much more of the story themselves. That's a big challenge. But I think Civilization is always a story that we’re interested in, because it’s our own: it’s how we got to where we are right now. So I think it's always going to have a significant place in that strategy environment.”• Firaxis says expansion packs continue to be the best fit for Civilization and XCOM [Eurogamer]
“Alongside today's Civilization 6 expansion reveal, I read Zelnick's quote to Anton Strenger, the lead designer of Rise and Fall, and asked him what this meant for the future of his studio. "I think with the recurring payments, there are many different ways in which that can be done," Strenger told Eurogamer. "There are microtransactions, there are expansion packs and there's DLC." Strenger then went on to say Firaxis remains committed to traditional expansions for its games, suggesting these are a better fit for Civilization and XCOM than microtransactions. "I would say that, yeah, everyone in the studio here at Firaxis: our love, our passion and our expertise are in expansion packs," he said. "One of the reasons we think that works so well for us is that with system-based, procedural games like Civilization and XCOM, we have the opportunity to add not just content in the way that some other games are able to do, but really deep changes to our systems and rules. "We think that's a really cool, special opportunity."”
Typically Civ expansions add major new game systems: the first Civ 5 expansion added religion, the second added tourism and great works. It's odd that this expansion doesn't quite sound like it's adding anything major new to fiddle with. OTOH the age system could greatly improve the game flow if they get it right. And I'm excited for governors; they're a really nice feature in Endless Legend and Endless Space 2. (Districts were also nice in Endless Legend, the Firaxis folks aren't too proud to borrow I guess.)
The true fans over at Civfanatics seem mostly happy.
posted by Nelson at 12:15 PM on November 29, 2017 [2 favorites]
The true fans over at Civfanatics seem mostly happy.
posted by Nelson at 12:15 PM on November 29, 2017 [2 favorites]
Civ 2 for life.
posted by Chrysostom at 12:18 PM on November 29, 2017 [5 favorites]
posted by Chrysostom at 12:18 PM on November 29, 2017 [5 favorites]
I haven't played a Civ game to any degree since SMAC, but I found Governors to be very handy in SMAC. There's too much to do to spend time constantly fiddling with workers and building facilities in every city on every turn.
posted by SansPoint at 12:19 PM on November 29, 2017
posted by SansPoint at 12:19 PM on November 29, 2017
That's one hell of a trailer.
Whose voices, anybody know? They both sounded familiar.
posted by CheesesOfBrazil at 12:23 PM on November 29, 2017
Whose voices, anybody know? They both sounded familiar.
posted by CheesesOfBrazil at 12:23 PM on November 29, 2017
Whose voices, anybody know? They both sounded familiar.
It's familiar because its Sean Bean. He does a lot of voice work in the game, reading random quotes whenever you open up a new technology.
posted by Fizz at 12:27 PM on November 29, 2017 [2 favorites]
It's familiar because its Sean Bean. He does a lot of voice work in the game, reading random quotes whenever you open up a new technology.
posted by Fizz at 12:27 PM on November 29, 2017 [2 favorites]
It's familiar because its Sean Bean. He does a lot of voice work in the game, reading random quotes whenever you open up a new technology.
Ah, sure. And the implication of the trailer is that his character is dead, which is very Sean Bean.
Obviously, I have never played 6. Never even got to 5. But now I'm wondering how I can contort Civ 4's event system to make some sort of Dark Ages possible >:)
posted by CheesesOfBrazil at 12:29 PM on November 29, 2017 [1 favorite]
Ah, sure. And the implication of the trailer is that his character is dead, which is very Sean Bean.
Obviously, I have never played 6. Never even got to 5. But now I'm wondering how I can contort Civ 4's event system to make some sort of Dark Ages possible >:)
posted by CheesesOfBrazil at 12:29 PM on November 29, 2017 [1 favorite]
Nifty. I'm still contenting myself with Civ V (& IV by way of Fall From Heaven II Mod) and am more likely to pick up the Beyond Earth expansion than Civ VI or it's expansion, any time soon. Firaxis had me from Alpha Centauri, and XCOM2 and it's War of the Chosen expansion are pulpy tun based tactics/boardgame procedurally generated just-one-more-turn-em-ups. Taking it slow, analyzing the data, trying out new things and watching best laid plans go up in smoke. Gandhi gets me. I think Firaxis has done fine by their model, and Paradox has a more aggressive model that really doesn't encourage a 'buy everything' mentality, so much as 'play your way' by way of micro-transaction.
My current turn based strategy rabbithole is Intelligent System's/Nintendo's Fire Emblem series. I've had Awakenings for years, and am just now getting to the Hard/Traditional end-game. I really dig their chess puzzle unit/map funnels by way of Visual Novel RPG mash-ups. Black Friday sales on the more recent Fates Trilogy and their Gaiden remake, Echoes : Shadows of Valentia mean I have quite a bit more to look forward to once I finally wrap up Awakenings.
posted by chainlinkspiral at 12:29 PM on November 29, 2017 [1 favorite]
My current turn based strategy rabbithole is Intelligent System's/Nintendo's Fire Emblem series. I've had Awakenings for years, and am just now getting to the Hard/Traditional end-game. I really dig their chess puzzle unit/map funnels by way of Visual Novel RPG mash-ups. Black Friday sales on the more recent Fates Trilogy and their Gaiden remake, Echoes : Shadows of Valentia mean I have quite a bit more to look forward to once I finally wrap up Awakenings.
posted by chainlinkspiral at 12:29 PM on November 29, 2017 [1 favorite]
Typically Civ expansions add major new game systems: the first Civ 5 expansion added religion, the second added tourism and great works. It's odd that this expansion doesn't quite sound like it's adding anything major new to fiddle with. OTOH the age system could greatly improve the game flow if they get it right. And I'm excited for governors; they're a really nice feature in Endless Legend and Endless Space 2. (Districts were also nice in Endless Legend, the Firaxis folks aren't too proud to borrow I guess.)
I think this indicates a shift towards more complexity, which is something Civ V and VI has been lacking. At least lacking in comparison to other RTS games like Endless Space, Crusader Kings II, Europa Universalis IV, Stellaris, etc. And I'm ok with that, I don't mind this shift into something a bit more nuanced with more micromanagement.
posted by Fizz at 12:34 PM on November 29, 2017
I think this indicates a shift towards more complexity, which is something Civ V and VI has been lacking. At least lacking in comparison to other RTS games like Endless Space, Crusader Kings II, Europa Universalis IV, Stellaris, etc. And I'm ok with that, I don't mind this shift into something a bit more nuanced with more micromanagement.
posted by Fizz at 12:34 PM on November 29, 2017
Also, religion being added to Civ V was one of my favourite things. It opened up all kinds of possibilities for winning in really interesting ways.
posted by Fizz at 12:37 PM on November 29, 2017
posted by Fizz at 12:37 PM on November 29, 2017
am more likely to pick up the Beyond Earth expansion
Just a heads up - Beyond Earth is not an expansion, but a stand alone game - an attempt to recapture/recreate SMAC. The reviews on it were mixed ("an interesting failure with much of value in the wreckage."); I never played it, but from what I've heard & read, it wasn't considered all that strong of an entry in the Civ suite of games. That may have changed with patches/expansions.
posted by nubs at 12:48 PM on November 29, 2017
Just a heads up - Beyond Earth is not an expansion, but a stand alone game - an attempt to recapture/recreate SMAC. The reviews on it were mixed ("an interesting failure with much of value in the wreckage."); I never played it, but from what I've heard & read, it wasn't considered all that strong of an entry in the Civ suite of games. That may have changed with patches/expansions.
posted by nubs at 12:48 PM on November 29, 2017
I own Beyond Earth, I just noticed its first and only expansion was on sale, and that's more tempting to me than Civ 6, at this juncture. Edit: Doh, was on sale. Back to full price.
posted by chainlinkspiral at 12:54 PM on November 29, 2017
posted by chainlinkspiral at 12:54 PM on November 29, 2017
Yeah, I'd mostly stay away from Beyond Earth. If you want space and RTA, you're better off with something like Stellaris or Endless Space or Endless Space 2.
posted by Fizz at 12:54 PM on November 29, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by Fizz at 12:54 PM on November 29, 2017 [1 favorite]
I've played Beyond Earth, and my reaction to it can possibly be gauged by the fact that every time it comes up in threads like this, I realize that once again I've completely forgotten its existence...and I bought it when it first came out.
posted by Mr. Bad Example at 12:58 PM on November 29, 2017 [3 favorites]
posted by Mr. Bad Example at 12:58 PM on November 29, 2017 [3 favorites]
I used to think that I could play the civ games again after finishing my degree, but now I'm more realistic: I'm not allowed to play the civ games until after a robust universal basic income is implemented. This is because if I have civ games on my computer I am more or less useless for anything other than playing civ games, and therefore totally unemployable.
(4 is the best as far as depth and replayability goes. SMAC is the best-written, but is too easy to win through rapid expansion (REX) strategies. Here's my explanation of how to break SMAC from one of the earlier times we've talked about it.)
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 1:13 PM on November 29, 2017 [13 favorites]
(4 is the best as far as depth and replayability goes. SMAC is the best-written, but is too easy to win through rapid expansion (REX) strategies. Here's my explanation of how to break SMAC from one of the earlier times we've talked about it.)
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 1:13 PM on November 29, 2017 [13 favorites]
Ah, so this must be why the price of Civ VI has recently dropped :/.
posted by Slothrup at 1:20 PM on November 29, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by Slothrup at 1:20 PM on November 29, 2017 [1 favorite]
I go through phases where I allow myself a 4X game binge, most recently Endless Space. But they eat insane amounts of time, and I find it difficult to think about anything else while I'm in the middle of one. So I generally have to uninstall them.
posted by Native in Exile at 1:29 PM on November 29, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by Native in Exile at 1:29 PM on November 29, 2017 [1 favorite]
Slothrup, There's been an Autumn Steam Sale happening, so that's likely the reason for the price drop. This expansion won't hit until February 8, 2018 so you have a bit of time to decide if the expansion is worth your money.
posted by Fizz at 1:31 PM on November 29, 2017
posted by Fizz at 1:31 PM on November 29, 2017
> So I generally have to uninstall them.
See, that's a difference between you and me. You get addicted to 4X games, and so you have to uninstall them. But when I get addicted to 4X games, I have to not just uninstall them, but also find ways to break my computer such that I can't ever reinstall them.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 1:32 PM on November 29, 2017
See, that's a difference between you and me. You get addicted to 4X games, and so you have to uninstall them. But when I get addicted to 4X games, I have to not just uninstall them, but also find ways to break my computer such that I can't ever reinstall them.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 1:32 PM on November 29, 2017
Typically Civ expansions add major new game systems: the first Civ 5 expansion added religion, the second added tourism and great works. It's odd that this expansion doesn't quite sound like it's adding anything major new to fiddle with.
Some of this is just that Civ 6 started with a lot of what Civ 5 had post-expansions. Tourism and Religion are Civ 6 victories in the base game. Civ 6 dropped Diplomatic and Economic victories, I imagine because they were basically the same -- having a bunch of resources is essentially what you need to secure city-state favor for Diplomatic victories. Or for that matter, buying an army to destroy your opponent with. Given how city state favor has been reworked to use a separate non-convertable currency, we might see the UN return in another expansion.
I realize that my view is slightly heretical, but my favorite Civ game was Civ Revolution, because it was fast enough to play online pickup games of multiplayer. Obviously it had some defects, like Zulu rush (or my favorite, English knights in BC), that a modern multiplayer focused game would have to patch out somehow, but the idea of winning a game of civ in a leisurely evening was great. If you squint, you can kinda see many of the Civ Rev ideas in Civ 6. Worker micromanagement is gone, and roads are built through other means. Units aren't stackable, except when you research certain technologies that allow formations. Being first to a technology yields a boost of some sort on the board state a free building or a free unit; this is reversed in Civ 6: certain board states will boost your tech tree in Eureka Moments. Beyond the streamlining, the one memorable thing that Civ Rev did was massive effects. Great People were way more effective, by their boosting city output 50 percent (similar to the Civ 6 governors?), or by major oneshots like a new tech or converting an opponent's city. New eras unlocked civ bonuses that felt really powerful, like rushing units for half price or triple the factory's production bonus in all your cities.
Anyways, I look forward to more details about Rise & Fall. And maybe, someday a viable multiplayer Civ that won't destroy anyone's PhD career.
posted by pwnguin at 1:35 PM on November 29, 2017 [3 favorites]
Some of this is just that Civ 6 started with a lot of what Civ 5 had post-expansions. Tourism and Religion are Civ 6 victories in the base game. Civ 6 dropped Diplomatic and Economic victories, I imagine because they were basically the same -- having a bunch of resources is essentially what you need to secure city-state favor for Diplomatic victories. Or for that matter, buying an army to destroy your opponent with. Given how city state favor has been reworked to use a separate non-convertable currency, we might see the UN return in another expansion.
I realize that my view is slightly heretical, but my favorite Civ game was Civ Revolution, because it was fast enough to play online pickup games of multiplayer. Obviously it had some defects, like Zulu rush (or my favorite, English knights in BC), that a modern multiplayer focused game would have to patch out somehow, but the idea of winning a game of civ in a leisurely evening was great. If you squint, you can kinda see many of the Civ Rev ideas in Civ 6. Worker micromanagement is gone, and roads are built through other means. Units aren't stackable, except when you research certain technologies that allow formations. Being first to a technology yields a boost of some sort on the board state a free building or a free unit; this is reversed in Civ 6: certain board states will boost your tech tree in Eureka Moments. Beyond the streamlining, the one memorable thing that Civ Rev did was massive effects. Great People were way more effective, by their boosting city output 50 percent (similar to the Civ 6 governors?), or by major oneshots like a new tech or converting an opponent's city. New eras unlocked civ bonuses that felt really powerful, like rushing units for half price or triple the factory's production bonus in all your cities.
Anyways, I look forward to more details about Rise & Fall. And maybe, someday a viable multiplayer Civ that won't destroy anyone's PhD career.
posted by pwnguin at 1:35 PM on November 29, 2017 [3 favorites]
but I found Governors to be very handy in SMAC. There's too much to do to spend time constantly fiddling with workers and building facilities in every city on every turn.
Of course, there's always that governor that decides what us Gaians need is a planet buster.
posted by lmfsilva at 2:00 PM on November 29, 2017
Of course, there's always that governor that decides what us Gaians need is a planet buster.
posted by lmfsilva at 2:00 PM on November 29, 2017
To continue the Beyond Earth, this video pretty well covers the criticism of the setting and feel of Beyond Earth, but since I got bored and played it for a bit, I want to bloviate about the mechanics.
Mind you, I haven't played with the expansion, but it's basically a polished but middling total conversion mod for Civ V. Except there's really only 2 victory types now - military conquest and four flavors of science victory.
I'm going to go into a digression about the tech web and affinity system, since it was pretty interesting and had potential, especially with how technology interacted with the affinity choice. Basically, there's a core web of branching technologies, and then each of those have 1-3 leaf technologies that aren't necessary for getting more advanced technologies, but many give affinity points towards each of three affinities, which are basically ideologies. Certain buildings require a certain level of affinity of one type for you to build them, and military units are upgraded based on your highest affinity level. And instead of bunching each affinity up in separate directions, the stuff is sprinkled throughout the tree. So it makes for some more complicated research choices trading off focusing on affinities vs focusing on certain resources you need.
But back to the victory conditions. There's one for each affinity, and one unaffiliated one, and they're all... kinda the same. Essentially you research some technologies, build a wonder, then do a thing that's going take about 20 turns after the wonder is done, or maybe a little less. The unaffiliated one compensates for the lack of affinity requirement by costing a chunk of money to activate, but honestly, it's about the same as buying a high tier building, so it often is the one to go for. Especially since there's a rare bonus you can find that means you don't have to even research one of the more expensive technologies to get the victory.
The upshot of all this is that, barring someone randomly getting really lucky with that signal finding ruin discovery, games are effectively timed races. I usually play Soyuz difficulty and a quick game, and it seems like turn 230-240 is when the AI is going to end up finishing all their victory stuff. So while you can theoretically invade and disrupt other people's projects, the AI doesn't do that to you, so the game really just feels not very interactive unless there's a war.
This is contrasting to Civ V alternate victories like diplomacy and culture where you could actually do things to change how much tourism was being spread to or from you and having lots of culture could keep someone else from winning, so it felt more like a contest than just a race.
Since there's no culture victory, culture ends up just kinda being another form of research that gets you bonuses, except it doesn't contribute to victory, so focusing on it too much is just... not useful?
The other thing that bugs me a lot is their implementation of the city state equivalent which are independent stations. They are basically just places that have a certain set of stuff you get from trading and upgrade to higher yields over time the more they're traded with and then die off if no one trades with them. Except they just spawn randomly on the map over time in the early game. usually right where you're trying to send a settler to build a new city. And then because they have no army or diplomatic options, if the AI decides it wants to wipe out one of your trading partners, you can't even ask them to not do it, you just have to randomly declare ware and wipe out the army attacking the base before they succeed. And if a station is destroyed, there's not going to be any way to replace it, because only a set number spawn over the early phase of the game.
Given that I care enough about a very mediocre entry in the Civ series to talk about it this much, I should probably stay away from Civ VI.
posted by Zalzidrax at 2:02 PM on November 29, 2017 [2 favorites]
Mind you, I haven't played with the expansion, but it's basically a polished but middling total conversion mod for Civ V. Except there's really only 2 victory types now - military conquest and four flavors of science victory.
I'm going to go into a digression about the tech web and affinity system, since it was pretty interesting and had potential, especially with how technology interacted with the affinity choice. Basically, there's a core web of branching technologies, and then each of those have 1-3 leaf technologies that aren't necessary for getting more advanced technologies, but many give affinity points towards each of three affinities, which are basically ideologies. Certain buildings require a certain level of affinity of one type for you to build them, and military units are upgraded based on your highest affinity level. And instead of bunching each affinity up in separate directions, the stuff is sprinkled throughout the tree. So it makes for some more complicated research choices trading off focusing on affinities vs focusing on certain resources you need.
But back to the victory conditions. There's one for each affinity, and one unaffiliated one, and they're all... kinda the same. Essentially you research some technologies, build a wonder, then do a thing that's going take about 20 turns after the wonder is done, or maybe a little less. The unaffiliated one compensates for the lack of affinity requirement by costing a chunk of money to activate, but honestly, it's about the same as buying a high tier building, so it often is the one to go for. Especially since there's a rare bonus you can find that means you don't have to even research one of the more expensive technologies to get the victory.
The upshot of all this is that, barring someone randomly getting really lucky with that signal finding ruin discovery, games are effectively timed races. I usually play Soyuz difficulty and a quick game, and it seems like turn 230-240 is when the AI is going to end up finishing all their victory stuff. So while you can theoretically invade and disrupt other people's projects, the AI doesn't do that to you, so the game really just feels not very interactive unless there's a war.
This is contrasting to Civ V alternate victories like diplomacy and culture where you could actually do things to change how much tourism was being spread to or from you and having lots of culture could keep someone else from winning, so it felt more like a contest than just a race.
Since there's no culture victory, culture ends up just kinda being another form of research that gets you bonuses, except it doesn't contribute to victory, so focusing on it too much is just... not useful?
The other thing that bugs me a lot is their implementation of the city state equivalent which are independent stations. They are basically just places that have a certain set of stuff you get from trading and upgrade to higher yields over time the more they're traded with and then die off if no one trades with them. Except they just spawn randomly on the map over time in the early game. usually right where you're trying to send a settler to build a new city. And then because they have no army or diplomatic options, if the AI decides it wants to wipe out one of your trading partners, you can't even ask them to not do it, you just have to randomly declare ware and wipe out the army attacking the base before they succeed. And if a station is destroyed, there's not going to be any way to replace it, because only a set number spawn over the early phase of the game.
Given that I care enough about a very mediocre entry in the Civ series to talk about it this much, I should probably stay away from Civ VI.
posted by Zalzidrax at 2:02 PM on November 29, 2017 [2 favorites]
Zalzidrax, what's your Steam ID, maybe we should all chip in and buy you a copy, you know, just to ruin your life a little. The good kind of ruination.
;-)
posted by Fizz at 2:12 PM on November 29, 2017
;-)
posted by Fizz at 2:12 PM on November 29, 2017
All I want is to play Civ2 on my macbook. Is that too much to ask?
posted by Rumple at 2:18 PM on November 29, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by Rumple at 2:18 PM on November 29, 2017 [1 favorite]
Rumple, I'm sure it's heresy to even suggest this but I don't have experience playing these games so I don't know but are Civ 2 and Civ 2 Revolution similar in any way? Is one an expansion or ultimate version or something? Because I know you can get Civ 2 Revolution on iOS, Android and Vita.
posted by Fizz at 2:23 PM on November 29, 2017
posted by Fizz at 2:23 PM on November 29, 2017
Civ VI seemed like the first Civ that was complete out of the box for the first release so I'm not really all that excited about an expansion pack for it. Both IV and V took a few expansions before they felt like they were really fleshed out games.
posted by octothorpe at 2:24 PM on November 29, 2017
posted by octothorpe at 2:24 PM on November 29, 2017
Zalzidrax, the Codex mod for Civ:BE has greatly enhanced my enjoyment of the game.
posted by Pendragon at 2:25 PM on November 29, 2017
posted by Pendragon at 2:25 PM on November 29, 2017
Fizz - actually I don't know, I only played Civ2 way back, then tried 5(?) I think and it was too much. Civ2 was just right for my attention span.
posted by Rumple at 2:25 PM on November 29, 2017
posted by Rumple at 2:25 PM on November 29, 2017
I'd love it if they fixed cross platform multiplayer like they've been saying they would for...a long time now. Alas, I'll have to content myself by gorging on this instead I suppose.
posted by msbutah at 2:29 PM on November 29, 2017
posted by msbutah at 2:29 PM on November 29, 2017
Ah, excellent. That means that it'll be fully patched and the price will be down in my range just in time for next year's winter sale.
/r/patientgamers; not just a subreddit, a philosophy.
posted by MrVisible at 2:43 PM on November 29, 2017 [2 favorites]
/r/patientgamers; not just a subreddit, a philosophy.
posted by MrVisible at 2:43 PM on November 29, 2017 [2 favorites]
I realize that my view is slightly heretical, but my favorite Civ game was Civ Revolution
I probably have a more heretical view ;) My favorite Civ game was Civ World... it was a Facebook massively multiplayer game also by Sid Meier and Firaxis.
Every player controlled a nation-state of sorts, and could build on their own map. You would combine together with other players to form a "civilization". There was voting on policy, and based on your relative outputs, different people would rise to positions of science / economics / war ministers, etc, and there would be a "king". Each position had unique decision making capabilities - the war minister, for example, could intervene and change the military deployment of the players in their civ.
The game advanced through different "ages" depending on which civ discovered a breakthrough technology, from stone age to space age, and then the game would end. Each "game" would take one week to complete, and you got points to purchase cosmetics (Japanese themed buildings, etc). You could war with other nations to steal their wonders, and conduct back alley dealing to get other players to defect, or coordinate simultaneous attacks on other civs.
It was really fun playing with a bunch of friends, competing for various minister positions and seeing who could be king, and of course the anonymous voting =P
posted by xdvesper at 3:03 PM on November 29, 2017 [1 favorite]
I probably have a more heretical view ;) My favorite Civ game was Civ World... it was a Facebook massively multiplayer game also by Sid Meier and Firaxis.
Every player controlled a nation-state of sorts, and could build on their own map. You would combine together with other players to form a "civilization". There was voting on policy, and based on your relative outputs, different people would rise to positions of science / economics / war ministers, etc, and there would be a "king". Each position had unique decision making capabilities - the war minister, for example, could intervene and change the military deployment of the players in their civ.
The game advanced through different "ages" depending on which civ discovered a breakthrough technology, from stone age to space age, and then the game would end. Each "game" would take one week to complete, and you got points to purchase cosmetics (Japanese themed buildings, etc). You could war with other nations to steal their wonders, and conduct back alley dealing to get other players to defect, or coordinate simultaneous attacks on other civs.
It was really fun playing with a bunch of friends, competing for various minister positions and seeing who could be king, and of course the anonymous voting =P
posted by xdvesper at 3:03 PM on November 29, 2017 [1 favorite]
Unfortunately, Civ 6 isn't much of a civ game, because the ai can't play it. It's just solitaire. The ai can't make any progress with the war system, which is baffling because it is so good with the religious system. Barbarians are also a serious threat, so something must just be broken under the hood.
posted by BeeDo at 3:08 PM on November 29, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by BeeDo at 3:08 PM on November 29, 2017 [1 favorite]
Rumple, I'm sure it's heresy to even suggest this but I don't have experience playing these games so I don't know but are Civ 2 and Civ 2 Revolution similar in any way? Is one an expansion or ultimate version or something? Because I know you can get Civ 2 Revolution on iOS, Android and Vita.
Civilization is a long, long game for PC. If turns take 5 minutes each, and victory happens around turn 200, it's a 16 hour game start to finish. Thats fine, and well. Though you quickly reach a point where every next turn something good is going to happen, and now it's 4am and you can hear the birds chirping and you have to be at work in a few hours and I guess you might as well just stay up now. Civ 2 is an old game released in the 90's. Civ 6 is the sequel to the sequel to the sequel of it, and over time it has become more and more complicated. Religion, culture, espionage, causus belli, city-states, adjacency bonuses in combat, public health, civic policies, tourism, districts, great people, suzerains, luxury goods,
Civilization Revolution was a redesign of the Civilization series designed to appeal to console gamers. Network play, controls suitable for controllers, and comparatively quick turns (often under 1 min), less micromanagement and faster victory conditions. Civ Rev 2 is the sequel to Civ Rev, and only available on mobile AFAICT. Touch friendly, and no multiplayer.
So they're similar, but they explore different game designs. Some say Civ Rev is a good intro to the game's concepts, others say it's a heretical dilution of the game that will turn off people seeking the complexity the PC game series. If you're just seeking a civ2 high, FreeCiv seems to occupy similar and visuals without the complexity creep the mainline series has exhibited.
posted by pwnguin at 3:09 PM on November 29, 2017 [4 favorites]
Civilization is a long, long game for PC. If turns take 5 minutes each, and victory happens around turn 200, it's a 16 hour game start to finish. Thats fine, and well. Though you quickly reach a point where every next turn something good is going to happen, and now it's 4am and you can hear the birds chirping and you have to be at work in a few hours and I guess you might as well just stay up now. Civ 2 is an old game released in the 90's. Civ 6 is the sequel to the sequel to the sequel of it, and over time it has become more and more complicated. Religion, culture, espionage, causus belli, city-states, adjacency bonuses in combat, public health, civic policies, tourism, districts, great people, suzerains, luxury goods,
Civilization Revolution was a redesign of the Civilization series designed to appeal to console gamers. Network play, controls suitable for controllers, and comparatively quick turns (often under 1 min), less micromanagement and faster victory conditions. Civ Rev 2 is the sequel to Civ Rev, and only available on mobile AFAICT. Touch friendly, and no multiplayer.
So they're similar, but they explore different game designs. Some say Civ Rev is a good intro to the game's concepts, others say it's a heretical dilution of the game that will turn off people seeking the complexity the PC game series. If you're just seeking a civ2 high, FreeCiv seems to occupy similar and visuals without the complexity creep the mainline series has exhibited.
posted by pwnguin at 3:09 PM on November 29, 2017 [4 favorites]
Civ VI seemed like the first Civ that was complete out of the box for the first release so I'm not really all that excited about an expansion pack for it.
It largely was. I liked IV more than V, and have been coming around on VI. My main complaint, aside from the bugs (like the AI offering you a trade deal they cannot accept), is how really CPU bound the late game gets. I even turned off all the animations and such, but large games are just a frustrating thing. And my computer isn't underpowered.
Also, I would love to have a city planner that let see what bonuses districts would have all in once place. I've played enough that I kind of have a feel, but it annoys me. The spy interface is annoying as hell. I want Julio to stay in the capital as a counter spy. Why does that take 7 clicks ? And it sucks that I can't build roads now - sometimes I really want a road from the encampment to the sea for no reason than to hurry my troops along. I'm fine with traders building them, but I'd like the option to as well.
All that being said, I've been enjoying VI quite a lot. Not as much as IV, but I think it will get there. This new expansion is exciting news indeed!
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 3:14 PM on November 29, 2017
It largely was. I liked IV more than V, and have been coming around on VI. My main complaint, aside from the bugs (like the AI offering you a trade deal they cannot accept), is how really CPU bound the late game gets. I even turned off all the animations and such, but large games are just a frustrating thing. And my computer isn't underpowered.
Also, I would love to have a city planner that let see what bonuses districts would have all in once place. I've played enough that I kind of have a feel, but it annoys me. The spy interface is annoying as hell. I want Julio to stay in the capital as a counter spy. Why does that take 7 clicks ? And it sucks that I can't build roads now - sometimes I really want a road from the encampment to the sea for no reason than to hurry my troops along. I'm fine with traders building them, but I'd like the option to as well.
All that being said, I've been enjoying VI quite a lot. Not as much as IV, but I think it will get there. This new expansion is exciting news indeed!
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 3:14 PM on November 29, 2017
the complexity creep the mainline series has exhibited.
I'd love to hear what other Civ fans feel about this particular aspect of Civilization/gaming in this RTS genre. It's definitely something I've noticed and I've only really played IV, V, & VI.
posted by Fizz at 3:28 PM on November 29, 2017
I'd love to hear what other Civ fans feel about this particular aspect of Civilization/gaming in this RTS genre. It's definitely something I've noticed and I've only really played IV, V, & VI.
posted by Fizz at 3:28 PM on November 29, 2017
And it sucks that I can't build roads now - sometimes I really want a road from the encampment to the sea for no reason than to hurry my troops along.
The mideval tech Military Engineering provides Military Engineer units that can construct roads directly. By the time you have an encampment worth marching from, you'll have access to it.
posted by pwnguin at 3:48 PM on November 29, 2017 [2 favorites]
The mideval tech Military Engineering provides Military Engineer units that can construct roads directly. By the time you have an encampment worth marching from, you'll have access to it.
posted by pwnguin at 3:48 PM on November 29, 2017 [2 favorites]
I want Civ II on Steam. The one with the Wonders movies (loved that Manhattan Project movie) and the animated ambassadors and the Council of Advisors ("Draw off their wealth. Slowly.") but with the improved graphics of Civ II: Test Of Time. Is that too much to ask? The movies and animation were cut, I think, to shrink the game to CD size. We're beyond that now.
*sigh* I play Civ V and dream of Civ II.
posted by CCBC at 4:18 PM on November 29, 2017 [2 favorites]
*sigh* I play Civ V and dream of Civ II.
posted by CCBC at 4:18 PM on November 29, 2017 [2 favorites]
"Complexity Creep" is exactly the problem, yes.
And the name of my Emo band.
posted by Rumple at 4:40 PM on November 29, 2017 [1 favorite]
And the name of my Emo band.
posted by Rumple at 4:40 PM on November 29, 2017 [1 favorite]
I'd love to hear what other Civ fans feel about this particular aspect of Civilization/gaming in this RTS genre. It's definitely something I've noticed and I've only really played IV, V, & VI.
So I've been playing (and modding) Civ since the beginning, but I stopped at IV. The absence of stacking, and the overall look, of V prevented me from giving it a try (not to mention the fact that I need my Civ games to have a low barrier for entry in terms of modding, AND they need to be low-res enough to comfortably run, in local multiplayer, on a non-gaming-optimized laptop; naturally, I played Test of Time a looooot). For the same reasons, I haven't experienced VI yet.
But I feel like "complexity creep" is a strange term, since I had the (admittedly second-hand) impression that V, at least in its first release, was much simpler than IV. And IV was almost exactly as complex as II/Test of Time and III. The developers were certainly outspoken about their desire to minimize "micro-management," which IMO goes hand-in-hand with the notion of complexity. Maybe "expansion pack-itis" is really what's going on here?: the expansions for II, III, and IV didn't vastly alter the core gameplay in the ways that the expansions for V and now VI seem to.
And if that's the case, then (at least in the case of V) pure greed is to blame, because they obviously released V with the express intent of making people wait and pay for game modes they knew they should have had right out of the gate, like The Sims has done.
For those of you familiar with V and VI: is it the case that the expansion features significantly increase micromanagement?
All I want is to play Civ2 on my macbook. Is that too much to ask?
If it's possible to play Civ 1 on my Android, then brother, you'd better not tell me about it, is all I have to say. I'd never set my phone down again. I'd really just surgically implant it into my left palm. I'd turn into one of those body modification people, but expressly for Civ.
posted by CheesesOfBrazil at 5:26 AM on November 30, 2017 [3 favorites]
So I've been playing (and modding) Civ since the beginning, but I stopped at IV. The absence of stacking, and the overall look, of V prevented me from giving it a try (not to mention the fact that I need my Civ games to have a low barrier for entry in terms of modding, AND they need to be low-res enough to comfortably run, in local multiplayer, on a non-gaming-optimized laptop; naturally, I played Test of Time a looooot). For the same reasons, I haven't experienced VI yet.
But I feel like "complexity creep" is a strange term, since I had the (admittedly second-hand) impression that V, at least in its first release, was much simpler than IV. And IV was almost exactly as complex as II/Test of Time and III. The developers were certainly outspoken about their desire to minimize "micro-management," which IMO goes hand-in-hand with the notion of complexity. Maybe "expansion pack-itis" is really what's going on here?: the expansions for II, III, and IV didn't vastly alter the core gameplay in the ways that the expansions for V and now VI seem to.
And if that's the case, then (at least in the case of V) pure greed is to blame, because they obviously released V with the express intent of making people wait and pay for game modes they knew they should have had right out of the gate, like The Sims has done.
For those of you familiar with V and VI: is it the case that the expansion features significantly increase micromanagement?
All I want is to play Civ2 on my macbook. Is that too much to ask?
If it's possible to play Civ 1 on my Android, then brother, you'd better not tell me about it, is all I have to say. I'd never set my phone down again. I'd really just surgically implant it into my left palm. I'd turn into one of those body modification people, but expressly for Civ.
posted by CheesesOfBrazil at 5:26 AM on November 30, 2017 [3 favorites]
I played Civ 2 a lot during my PhD, Civ 3 came out with my first post doc and I eventually gave it away. pwnguin's timely email has stopped me from picking up Civ 6 I think because it reminded me that the key thing I learned about resource management from Civ is that the only way to win is not to play.
posted by biffa at 6:38 AM on November 30, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by biffa at 6:38 AM on November 30, 2017 [1 favorite]
But I feel like "complexity creep" is a strange term, since I had the (admittedly second-hand) impression that V, at least in its first release, was much simpler than IV. And IV was almost exactly as complex as II/Test of Time and III. The developers were certainly outspoken about their desire to minimize "micro-management," which IMO goes hand-in-hand with the notion of complexity.
I too have been playing since Civ I, and I think the term "complexity creep" is a useful way to express some things. I feel like each iteration of Civ since Civ II has introduced or tried to introduce some new model of a system for the player to manage - leaders, traits, culture, resources, different victory conditions, colonies, espionage, tech eras, armies, religions, tourism, governance systems, etc. These are different from the micro-management problem, which basically refers to the fact that over time, the size of the civilization puts more and more demands on the player to make decisions about what each unit/city is doing and how it is doing it, but they can also be the same because they become another thing the player has to manage & pay attention to. And sometimes these systems suck - Civ V lost a lot of appeal for me with the introduction of tourism, which I don't think was well handled (or it may just be that it was the additional system that pushed the game to a point where I could no longer manage everything anymore. I'm not a great Civ player by any stretch).
What bugs me about it is that I feel that to some extent that this "complexity creep" is a way of trying to overload the player, because the AI isn't great. Diplomacy has been a longstanding deficiency in Civ games, with the AI often acting in erratic ways, switching from friendly to hostile in a moment, turning on allies, making poor trades, etc. The AI has, in general, also had difficulty in conducting wars and the iterations of Civ prior to V compensated for that with the Stacks of Doom that at least meant that AIs on the same continent as the player could pose a serious threat - but anything requiring seaborne invasion was beyond them, which mean playing on island maps was a way for the player to balance out the advantages granted the AI at higher difficulties. With the move to one unit per tile, war has changed but again not hugely in the AIs favour; players are better at understanding which units to use for situations and how they support each other, and the AI response seems to be Carpets of Doom which are effectively in that they deny movement options to the player.
Anyways, I'm at a point where I would love to see Civ really work on AI behaviour and decision making ahead of introducing new systems for the player to juggle. When I do play Civ these days, it's usually Civ IV - I don't like the Stacks of Doom, but I find Civ IV has the right level of balance of play for me (plus my computer can process it quickly on a huge map; it does alright with Civ V, and while it apparently just meets the minimum requires for VI, I expect it would be a disappointment from a performance perspective).
posted by nubs at 8:11 AM on November 30, 2017 [3 favorites]
I too have been playing since Civ I, and I think the term "complexity creep" is a useful way to express some things. I feel like each iteration of Civ since Civ II has introduced or tried to introduce some new model of a system for the player to manage - leaders, traits, culture, resources, different victory conditions, colonies, espionage, tech eras, armies, religions, tourism, governance systems, etc. These are different from the micro-management problem, which basically refers to the fact that over time, the size of the civilization puts more and more demands on the player to make decisions about what each unit/city is doing and how it is doing it, but they can also be the same because they become another thing the player has to manage & pay attention to. And sometimes these systems suck - Civ V lost a lot of appeal for me with the introduction of tourism, which I don't think was well handled (or it may just be that it was the additional system that pushed the game to a point where I could no longer manage everything anymore. I'm not a great Civ player by any stretch).
What bugs me about it is that I feel that to some extent that this "complexity creep" is a way of trying to overload the player, because the AI isn't great. Diplomacy has been a longstanding deficiency in Civ games, with the AI often acting in erratic ways, switching from friendly to hostile in a moment, turning on allies, making poor trades, etc. The AI has, in general, also had difficulty in conducting wars and the iterations of Civ prior to V compensated for that with the Stacks of Doom that at least meant that AIs on the same continent as the player could pose a serious threat - but anything requiring seaborne invasion was beyond them, which mean playing on island maps was a way for the player to balance out the advantages granted the AI at higher difficulties. With the move to one unit per tile, war has changed but again not hugely in the AIs favour; players are better at understanding which units to use for situations and how they support each other, and the AI response seems to be Carpets of Doom which are effectively in that they deny movement options to the player.
Anyways, I'm at a point where I would love to see Civ really work on AI behaviour and decision making ahead of introducing new systems for the player to juggle. When I do play Civ these days, it's usually Civ IV - I don't like the Stacks of Doom, but I find Civ IV has the right level of balance of play for me (plus my computer can process it quickly on a huge map; it does alright with Civ V, and while it apparently just meets the minimum requires for VI, I expect it would be a disappointment from a performance perspective).
posted by nubs at 8:11 AM on November 30, 2017 [3 favorites]
What bugs me about it is that I feel that to some extent that this "complexity creep" is a way of trying to overload the player, because the AI isn't great.
Hmm, I hadn't considered this. But you make a strong case.
I was thinking it's more a result of the pressure of the gaming industry and the genre. There are so many other RTS games out there that are filled with so much more to do, so much more to micromanage, that I think Fireaxis has felt the need to inject these types of game features into the Civ series.
posted by Fizz at 8:59 AM on November 30, 2017
Hmm, I hadn't considered this. But you make a strong case.
I was thinking it's more a result of the pressure of the gaming industry and the genre. There are so many other RTS games out there that are filled with so much more to do, so much more to micromanage, that I think Fireaxis has felt the need to inject these types of game features into the Civ series.
posted by Fizz at 8:59 AM on November 30, 2017
I was thinking it's more a result of the pressure of the gaming industry and the genre. There are so many other RTS games out there that are filled with so much more to do, so much more to micromanage, that I think Fireaxis has felt the need to inject these types of game features into the Civ series.
I think that is also a pressure; for a long time Civ was the stand alone leader in 4X RTS, but there are now a lot of strong entries in the field (I think Endless Legend - which has its own problems - introduced a lot of different ways of doing/looking at things in 4X. I'm not sure if my problems with Endless Legend have to do with the game mechanics or the fact that everything is different enough that I can't handle the learning curve). I'm also thinking the rise of some of the Grand Strategy Games like Crusader Kings II, Hearts of Iron, Europa Universalis may also be influencing expectations.
posted by nubs at 9:07 AM on November 30, 2017 [1 favorite]
I think that is also a pressure; for a long time Civ was the stand alone leader in 4X RTS, but there are now a lot of strong entries in the field (I think Endless Legend - which has its own problems - introduced a lot of different ways of doing/looking at things in 4X. I'm not sure if my problems with Endless Legend have to do with the game mechanics or the fact that everything is different enough that I can't handle the learning curve). I'm also thinking the rise of some of the Grand Strategy Games like Crusader Kings II, Hearts of Iron, Europa Universalis may also be influencing expectations.
posted by nubs at 9:07 AM on November 30, 2017 [1 favorite]
Of course, there's always that governor that decides what us Gaians need is a planet buster.
It would be cool if someone made a game in which this wasn't an accident of unthematic artificial intelligence, but an intended feature, and your various generals and governors had personalities and political agendas of their own. You would need to make your character explicitly a dictator, because the sham democracies of 4X games would invite too many questions in this context, but it would be fun to balance revoking a general's command with her popularity among the troops and her support in the eastern provinces' political establishment.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 9:44 AM on November 30, 2017
It would be cool if someone made a game in which this wasn't an accident of unthematic artificial intelligence, but an intended feature, and your various generals and governors had personalities and political agendas of their own. You would need to make your character explicitly a dictator, because the sham democracies of 4X games would invite too many questions in this context, but it would be fun to balance revoking a general's command with her popularity among the troops and her support in the eastern provinces' political establishment.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 9:44 AM on November 30, 2017
Gentle correction: Civilization isn't an RTS (Real Time Strategy) game. It's turn based. Doesn't change anything you're saying about the complexity of this kind of 4X / turn-based strategy game. I just bounced hard off of Endless Space 2 because I got so overwhelmed with all the various systems. I'm just tired of learning all that stuff, you know?
What I want is a game that's more of a story-telling foil, where I can just kinda do my thing without worrying about optimizing. Endless Legend is very good at this through its mechanism of a quest-driven game with specific hero units with their own stories. It's an interesting twist on the 4X genre.
In Civilization, I want to play more casually to make my own story. Maybe I put off researching Coal because that makes sense for my little empire at the moment. Or maybe I build some factories near the coal mine because it looks like the right spot, vs micro-optimizing adjacency and terrain bonuses. To be fair, Civ 6 is really pretty good at this. I mean you're not going to win an Immortal game without some serious min-maxing, but you can have fun and a reasonable challenge without getting too wonky.
The other complaint though is these games just take too long. Which is why I mentioned the RTS correction, because there is a Civilization-like RTS game out there: Rise of Nations, Brian Reynold's 2003 game. It's basically "what if Civilization but a 30 minute RTS game" and a lot of fun. (There was a fantasy-themed sequel too, Rise of Legends.) There was a re-release of Rise of Legends a few years back so it's playable on modern systems.
posted by Nelson at 9:58 AM on November 30, 2017 [1 favorite]
What I want is a game that's more of a story-telling foil, where I can just kinda do my thing without worrying about optimizing. Endless Legend is very good at this through its mechanism of a quest-driven game with specific hero units with their own stories. It's an interesting twist on the 4X genre.
In Civilization, I want to play more casually to make my own story. Maybe I put off researching Coal because that makes sense for my little empire at the moment. Or maybe I build some factories near the coal mine because it looks like the right spot, vs micro-optimizing adjacency and terrain bonuses. To be fair, Civ 6 is really pretty good at this. I mean you're not going to win an Immortal game without some serious min-maxing, but you can have fun and a reasonable challenge without getting too wonky.
The other complaint though is these games just take too long. Which is why I mentioned the RTS correction, because there is a Civilization-like RTS game out there: Rise of Nations, Brian Reynold's 2003 game. It's basically "what if Civilization but a 30 minute RTS game" and a lot of fun. (There was a fantasy-themed sequel too, Rise of Legends.) There was a re-release of Rise of Legends a few years back so it's playable on modern systems.
posted by Nelson at 9:58 AM on November 30, 2017 [1 favorite]
Rise of Nations is excellent, and it, too, was recently re-released. It's a shame that more games haven't followed its example, but you could say the same thing about Company of Heroes. Real-time strategy doesn't enjoy the profile it had twenty years ago, even if Starcraft II, like its MOBA successors, remains a great game that rewards study and practice.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 10:06 AM on November 30, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 10:06 AM on November 30, 2017 [1 favorite]
What I want is a game that's more of a story-telling foil, where I can just kinda do my thing without worrying about optimizing. Endless Legend is very good at this through its mechanism of a quest-driven game with specific hero units with their own stories. It's an interesting twist on the 4X genre.
Have you heard of King of Dragon Pass? It's great! You might also enjoy Arcen's Last Federation, a very odd blend of politics, turn-based combat, and bullet hell.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 10:08 AM on November 30, 2017 [3 favorites]
Have you heard of King of Dragon Pass? It's great! You might also enjoy Arcen's Last Federation, a very odd blend of politics, turn-based combat, and bullet hell.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 10:08 AM on November 30, 2017 [3 favorites]
It would be cool if someone made a game in which this wasn't an accident of unthematic artificial intelligence, but an intended feature, and your various generals and governors had personalities and political agendas of their own
I'm very intrigued by the idea of megagames, and am wishing they could be implemented electronically in a way that could involve hundreds of players in various roles with agendas that also wouldn't consume every waking minute of life.
posted by nubs at 10:09 AM on November 30, 2017 [2 favorites]
I'm very intrigued by the idea of megagames, and am wishing they could be implemented electronically in a way that could involve hundreds of players in various roles with agendas that also wouldn't consume every waking minute of life.
posted by nubs at 10:09 AM on November 30, 2017 [2 favorites]
Also meant to add this link about megagames
posted by nubs at 10:12 AM on November 30, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by nubs at 10:12 AM on November 30, 2017 [1 favorite]
Gentle correction: Civilization isn't an RTS (Real Time Strategy) game. It's turn based.
Thanks for that correction. And yet, it makes me wonder if the Civilization series will make this jump into real time strategy since it has embraced so much of the complexity/micromanagement systems from the RTS genre.
posted by Fizz at 10:15 AM on November 30, 2017
Thanks for that correction. And yet, it makes me wonder if the Civilization series will make this jump into real time strategy since it has embraced so much of the complexity/micromanagement systems from the RTS genre.
posted by Fizz at 10:15 AM on November 30, 2017
Thanks for reminding me of King of Dragon Pass, Rustic Etruscan - I have a copy but have only fooled around with it marginally. I need to dig in on it, because it is intriguing
posted by nubs at 10:16 AM on November 30, 2017
posted by nubs at 10:16 AM on November 30, 2017
Christ, I hope Civilization doesn't go RTS. One of the best parts of the game is the ability to pause and think over your position at leisure. If I wanted to be timed and stressed while having to think, I'd go to work.
posted by Mr. Bad Example at 10:20 AM on November 30, 2017 [4 favorites]
posted by Mr. Bad Example at 10:20 AM on November 30, 2017 [4 favorites]
Christ, I hope Civilization doesn't go RTS.
Same here. But I have this unpleasant gut feeling that they're pushing in this direction and its because of the genre as a whole. I'm sure they 're aware of the popularity of games like Endless Space and Stellaris and want to tap that segment of the gaming community.
I have both Endless Space, Endless Legend, Stellaris, Crusader Kings II, and Europa Universalis IV. And of all of these games the one that has felt the most friendly to me has been Endless Legend. It has a similar vibe and it didn't feel like too much of a jump from Civ V or Civ VI to this style of game.
posted by Fizz at 10:26 AM on November 30, 2017 [1 favorite]
Same here. But I have this unpleasant gut feeling that they're pushing in this direction and its because of the genre as a whole. I'm sure they 're aware of the popularity of games like Endless Space and Stellaris and want to tap that segment of the gaming community.
I have both Endless Space, Endless Legend, Stellaris, Crusader Kings II, and Europa Universalis IV. And of all of these games the one that has felt the most friendly to me has been Endless Legend. It has a similar vibe and it didn't feel like too much of a jump from Civ V or Civ VI to this style of game.
posted by Fizz at 10:26 AM on November 30, 2017 [1 favorite]
I'm very intrigued by the idea of megagames, and am wishing they could be implemented electronically in a way that could involve hundreds of players in various roles with agendas that also wouldn't consume every waking minute of life.
Wow. Yeah. Civ as global, internet-mediated Model U.N. That…would be badass. And intimidating as hell to get involved in, probably. Like Eve Online but moreso.
posted by CheesesOfBrazil at 10:30 AM on November 30, 2017 [1 favorite]
Wow. Yeah. Civ as global, internet-mediated Model U.N. That…would be badass. And intimidating as hell to get involved in, probably. Like Eve Online but moreso.
posted by CheesesOfBrazil at 10:30 AM on November 30, 2017 [1 favorite]
Wow. Yeah. Civ as global, internet-mediated Model U.N. That…would be badass. And intimidating as hell to get involved in, probably. Like Eve Online but moreso.
Yeah, I would want to play as like the junior undersecretary to the undersecretary for rainwater drainage of Nowheresville, Unimportant for at least the first time or two anyways. (SD & SU has done videos of their two trips to Megagames, and they are fun to watch - links are in the sidebar of the main megagame page).
I mean, when I play CK II I usually take some insignificant count somewhere because my interest is more in watching what happens in terms of the grand sweep of history in the game model as opposed to being a mover and shaker of that history. I had a game where I started as a count in Denmark, watched as Sweden got carved up and cease to exist between the actions of Norway, Finland, and the HRE; wound up subject to Norway myself for a while, and then spent the last century of the game or so as the King of Denmark through no real action of my own - the game started a faction in favour of my character becoming King without me even knowing, and that faction successfully pressured the current King to abdicate in my favour. And it just meant more headaches because now I had to worry about the ongoing moves every other Kingdom and Empire was making.
posted by nubs at 11:01 AM on November 30, 2017 [1 favorite]
Yeah, I would want to play as like the junior undersecretary to the undersecretary for rainwater drainage of Nowheresville, Unimportant for at least the first time or two anyways. (SD & SU has done videos of their two trips to Megagames, and they are fun to watch - links are in the sidebar of the main megagame page).
I mean, when I play CK II I usually take some insignificant count somewhere because my interest is more in watching what happens in terms of the grand sweep of history in the game model as opposed to being a mover and shaker of that history. I had a game where I started as a count in Denmark, watched as Sweden got carved up and cease to exist between the actions of Norway, Finland, and the HRE; wound up subject to Norway myself for a while, and then spent the last century of the game or so as the King of Denmark through no real action of my own - the game started a faction in favour of my character becoming King without me even knowing, and that faction successfully pressured the current King to abdicate in my favour. And it just meant more headaches because now I had to worry about the ongoing moves every other Kingdom and Empire was making.
posted by nubs at 11:01 AM on November 30, 2017 [1 favorite]
Civ as global, internet-mediated Model U.N.
What, you mean Eve Online?
I think there's very little danger of Civilization going to an RTS game. First, RTS games are considered something of a dying genre; Starcraft 2 really stunk up the room, you know? There are still some being made, like the recent Dawn of War III, but it's not a vital medium everyone is dying to clone.
But the other thing is that Civilization's complexity is deeply tied to its being turn based. Strategic decisions are all about picking the exact right build path, the right place to build cities, etc. The game demands a lot of attention to detail which takes time. The combat in Civ is similarly turn based, particularly the way the later one-unit-per-tile mechanics play like chess. RTS games have these elements but are simplified to make it possible to play at speed. Civilization is all about adding extra complications.
posted by Nelson at 11:19 AM on November 30, 2017
What, you mean Eve Online?
I think there's very little danger of Civilization going to an RTS game. First, RTS games are considered something of a dying genre; Starcraft 2 really stunk up the room, you know? There are still some being made, like the recent Dawn of War III, but it's not a vital medium everyone is dying to clone.
But the other thing is that Civilization's complexity is deeply tied to its being turn based. Strategic decisions are all about picking the exact right build path, the right place to build cities, etc. The game demands a lot of attention to detail which takes time. The combat in Civ is similarly turn based, particularly the way the later one-unit-per-tile mechanics play like chess. RTS games have these elements but are simplified to make it possible to play at speed. Civilization is all about adding extra complications.
posted by Nelson at 11:19 AM on November 30, 2017
But I feel like "complexity creep" is a strange term, since I had the (admittedly second-hand) impression that V, at least in its first release, was much simpler than IV.
The problem though is that people compare each civ game to it's predecessor plus expansions. Civ 4's Warlords and Beyond the Sword added quite a bit, and Civ 5's expansions greatly changed things -- Brave New World introduced the tourism system for example.
At this point Firaxis has sort of trained people that the base game isn't complete until a few expansions are released, or that the new base games are always 'simpler, and therefore inferior.' Civ 6 started with complexity equal to or greater than Civ 5, but less than Civ 5 plus it's expansions, so there's a number of fans waiting to buy until the expansions for Civ 6 are released. Which contributes to 6 sitting below 5 on the player base metrics. Presumably Firaxis is hoping that announcing the expansion will give fans permission to like Civ 6 more than Civ 5.
posted by pwnguin at 11:42 AM on November 30, 2017
The problem though is that people compare each civ game to it's predecessor plus expansions. Civ 4's Warlords and Beyond the Sword added quite a bit, and Civ 5's expansions greatly changed things -- Brave New World introduced the tourism system for example.
At this point Firaxis has sort of trained people that the base game isn't complete until a few expansions are released, or that the new base games are always 'simpler, and therefore inferior.' Civ 6 started with complexity equal to or greater than Civ 5, but less than Civ 5 plus it's expansions, so there's a number of fans waiting to buy until the expansions for Civ 6 are released. Which contributes to 6 sitting below 5 on the player base metrics. Presumably Firaxis is hoping that announcing the expansion will give fans permission to like Civ 6 more than Civ 5.
posted by pwnguin at 11:42 AM on November 30, 2017
First, RTS games are considered something of a dying genre; Starcraft 2 really stunk up the room, you know?
I don't think it's really Starcraft 2's fault tbh. High profile RTS games became a bit of a dying breed at some point either because MOBAs ate their breakfast or because the market expanded but their sales did not. Starcraft 2 was well designed (the story was a cut below), but what other RTS releases in that time frame would you call events? Many people veered towards grand strategy (EU etc) games to get their fix, there was some success in RT tactics games (Company of Heroes, Dawn of War II), but it's not like when the first Starcraft was released when you would also see games like Myth II, Homeworld, Age of Empires II and Red Alert 2. Only the Total War series remains as a big hitter, but it has a different focus.
It's probably relevant that the two main drivers of the genre used to be Westwood, which got acquired and shuttered by EA, and Blizzard, which found greater profitability with WoW and then cosmetic microtransactions. Ensemble Studios and Chris Taylor's companies also floundered along the way and here we are.
The other complaint though is these games just take too long.
When I retire, I'll be running grand strategy/4X games all day long, but they do take enough time and headspace.
posted by ersatz at 2:47 AM on December 1, 2017 [1 favorite]
I don't think it's really Starcraft 2's fault tbh. High profile RTS games became a bit of a dying breed at some point either because MOBAs ate their breakfast or because the market expanded but their sales did not. Starcraft 2 was well designed (the story was a cut below), but what other RTS releases in that time frame would you call events? Many people veered towards grand strategy (EU etc) games to get their fix, there was some success in RT tactics games (Company of Heroes, Dawn of War II), but it's not like when the first Starcraft was released when you would also see games like Myth II, Homeworld, Age of Empires II and Red Alert 2. Only the Total War series remains as a big hitter, but it has a different focus.
It's probably relevant that the two main drivers of the genre used to be Westwood, which got acquired and shuttered by EA, and Blizzard, which found greater profitability with WoW and then cosmetic microtransactions. Ensemble Studios and Chris Taylor's companies also floundered along the way and here we are.
The other complaint though is these games just take too long.
When I retire, I'll be running grand strategy/4X games all day long, but they do take enough time and headspace.
posted by ersatz at 2:47 AM on December 1, 2017 [1 favorite]
Don't forget freemium strategy games. While they're mostly turn based (AFAIK), I believe any budding strategy designer turned down by Paradox would only get picked up by a browser/mobile developer or some eastern european developer. At least sometime around 2010 I noticed a lot of designers and developers of strategy games were being picked up by Zynga and similar companies after their companies dissolved. With that kind of brain-drain, it's no surprise the genre is not doing so well at the moment.
posted by lmfsilva at 12:27 PM on December 1, 2017
posted by lmfsilva at 12:27 PM on December 1, 2017
At least sometime around 2010 I noticed a lot of designers and developers of strategy games were being picked up by Zynga and similar companies after their companies dissolved.
That's also around when Brian Reynolds, who had been lead designer on Civ2 and Alpha Centauri, started working for Zynga. He's got his own company now, but is still, as far as I can tell, working on mobile/Facebook games that I have zero interest in.
posted by Copronymus at 12:53 PM on December 1, 2017
That's also around when Brian Reynolds, who had been lead designer on Civ2 and Alpha Centauri, started working for Zynga. He's got his own company now, but is still, as far as I can tell, working on mobile/Facebook games that I have zero interest in.
posted by Copronymus at 12:53 PM on December 1, 2017
Losing Reynolds was arguably the event horizon for RTS games, if only for passing the idea that if the designer of Civ 2, Alpha Centauri and Rise of Nations was in a way throwing the towel and refocused to browser games backed by micro-transactions, few people could make it.
I mean, I'd love to see something like the concept behind Forge of Empires with proper Sim City/City Building Series mechanics. Start a settlement in the BCs, then watch it grow, absorb smaller settlements, apply newly discovered technology, etc. But I doubt there's a market for such a game, particularly compared to mobile.
posted by lmfsilva at 1:47 PM on December 1, 2017
I mean, I'd love to see something like the concept behind Forge of Empires with proper Sim City/City Building Series mechanics. Start a settlement in the BCs, then watch it grow, absorb smaller settlements, apply newly discovered technology, etc. But I doubt there's a market for such a game, particularly compared to mobile.
posted by lmfsilva at 1:47 PM on December 1, 2017
Wait, hold up. Great trailer, but now it's got me thinking of the relation of the player to the Civilization they manage. Because if the player is an actual person in their Civ, that opens up all sorts of questions. Are they just some super immortal that never dies and everyone accepts as the person that run/manages the Civilization? Or are they part of a continuous line of leaders that just happens to look the same?
Or is it more convoluted? Like, the trailer shows what looks like the player leading some kind of uprising, which implies that they're not like royalty or part of the traditional leadership structure. Maybe the player can jump into different people and it only looks the same to our eye, in other words they're just Scott Bakula quantum leaping into important people.
posted by FJT at 9:57 AM on December 4, 2017 [1 favorite]
Or is it more convoluted? Like, the trailer shows what looks like the player leading some kind of uprising, which implies that they're not like royalty or part of the traditional leadership structure. Maybe the player can jump into different people and it only looks the same to our eye, in other words they're just Scott Bakula quantum leaping into important people.
posted by FJT at 9:57 AM on December 4, 2017 [1 favorite]
I played most of a game over the weekend and re-remembered the biggest issue I have with the game is the slow slog that the end game turns into. I was going for a science win and once I built a space port and started doing the required space projects, it's just a boring matter of waiting for things to finish.
posted by octothorpe at 10:15 AM on December 4, 2017
posted by octothorpe at 10:15 AM on December 4, 2017
« Older how the Tariq Ramadan scandal derailed France's... | Why do punk rock rats go out with new wave rats? Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Capt. Renault at 12:15 PM on November 29, 2017 [14 favorites]